I'm not putting them in the same bracket. There just isn't a clear cut line between what is "banter" and what isn't.

Frankie Boyle makes jokes about disabled children. He's a millionaire. Some guy makes what he perceives to be a joke about a murder victim and gets thrown in jail.

There's definitely a line between banter and what isn't. If anyone I knew started making such comments I'd tell them to stfu, not just think it was banter.

As for Boyle, yes there would seem to be a discrepancy here. But then again, there's nothing stopping the guy getting up on stage and saying the same things is there? He can see if he can be a millionaire too. Boyle may be beyond the pale to many but at least he isn't doing it behind a PC.

There's definitely a line between banter and what isn't. If anyone I knew started making such comments I'd tell them to stfu, not just think it was banter.

As for Boyle, yes there would seem to be a discrepancy here. But then again, there's nothing stopping the guy getting up on stage and saying the same things is there? He can see if he can be a millionaire too. Boyle may be beyond the pale to many but at least he isn't doing it behind a PC.

They could see it just as "banter" though. You wouldn't but your friend might. Who decides who is right? Someone might post sexist comments on an Internet forum. They might say it's banter and I might disagree. Who is right?

But is it all fine as long as long you do it in front of a microphone and not on a computer? Does the medium make it offensive? Frankie Boyle has a website. If he posts an offensive joke on there should he be jailed?

They do to an extent, businesses have the right to refuse to serve customers often on quite spurious grounds e.g. they don't like your clothing. What they don't have the right to refuse service on certain grounds e.g. race, religion, gender (with some exceptions), sexuality.

I'm listening to the gay couple who sued the Christian B&B owner. And I have to say they sound like a right pair of wet lettuces. Pompous asses they are IMO. Some people have differing views to you, get over it.

I didn't intend this thread to turn into a debate about the rights of B&B owners or gay couples, that's probably something that needs its own thread if anyone has the urge to start one.

I posted the Griffin story here because he has used Twitter to publish the private address of people he doesn't like and urged his followers (I'm sure they're a lovely bunch really) to turn up and stage a demo outside their house. Is that acceptable?

His twitter account was suspended for a time last night, but it is back online now with the tweet with the actual address in it removed.

This is where it gets awkward defending the rights of people to post whatever they like on social media under the blanket of free expression. It isn't just comedians or individuals with a dubious sense of humour you end up defending. It is odious toads like Nick Griffin, whose intentions were obviously not friendly towards the people whose address he published online.

I posted the Griffin story here because he has used Twitter to publish the private address of people he doesn't like and urged his followers (I'm sure they're a lovely bunch really) to turn up and stage a demo outside their house. Is that acceptable?

His twitter account was suspended for a time last night, but it is back online now with the tweet with the actual address in it removed.

This is where it gets awkward defending the rights of people to post whatever they like on social media under the blanket of free expression. It isn't just comedians or individuals with a dubious sense of humour you end up defending. It is odious toads like Nick Griffin, whose intentions were obviously not friendly towards the people whose address he published online.

I think it is something so utterly obnoxious that there is just no debating it. Griffin is absolutely out of order.

I didn't intend this thread to turn into a debate about the rights of B&B owners or gay couples, that's probably something that needs its own thread if anyone has the urge to start one.

I posted the Griffin story here because he has used Twitter to publish the private address of people he doesn't like and urged his followers (I'm sure they're a lovely bunch really) to turn up and stage a demo outside their house. Is that acceptable?

His twitter account was suspended for a time last night, but it is back online now with the tweet with the actual address in it removed.

This is where it gets awkward defending the rights of people to post whatever they like on social media under the blanket of free expression. It isn't just comedians or individuals with a dubious sense of humour you end up defending. It is odious toads like Nick Griffin, whose intentions were obviously not friendly towards the people whose address he published online.

But printing addresses etc moves away from free speech and into incitement. He could rant all he wants about heterophobia or whatever else he claims in his fevered little noggin is going on.

LIberty have defended and won on behalf Nick Griffin's right to free speech - and they were right to do so.

If Griffin was a genuine respected of free speech etc, he would have respected these guys rights by merely making his point, not by making a thinly disguised incitement to his readers to take some sort of action..